![Schematics of Google Cardboard [5] and an assembled Cardboard setup used in experiment](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Suman-Deb-3/publication/312485345/figure/fig1/AS:613940891504654@1523386323619/Schematics-of-Google-Cardboard-5-and-an-assembled-Cardboard-setup-used-in-experiment_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Suman Deb
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Suman Deb on Nov 14, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Smartphone Based Virtual Reality Systems in
Classroom Teaching
-a study on the effects of learning outcome
Ananda Bibek Ray
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
National Institute of Technology Agartala
Agartala, India
ananda.bibek[at]gmail.com
Suman Deb
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
National Institute of Technology Agartala
Agartala, India
sumandebcs[at]gmail.com
Abstract— Virtual Reality (VR) has come up as a pinnacle of
the ground breaking advances in computing power through
developments in fields of electronics, software and mobile
computing. It has been a topic of significant research and studies
in recent years, given that 2016 is widely predicted to be the year
where VR finds acceptability and affordability in mainstream
consumer market. VR systems were first introduced to target
entertainment and gaming, but numerous research and studies
have shown its importance in educational purposes. There is a
great potential in Virtual Reality Environments to serve as
teaching aids in compl ementing and improvi ng the education
process. In spite of that, it is held back due to their bulky systems,
complex setups and high cost, which limit their usage in versatile
scenario. This study is being taken up to devise a solution that can
address these problems using portable and simple VR setup with
affordable hardware. The system used here takes help of Google’s
‘Cardboard’ platform to provide the structure for Head Mounted
Display while the display is provided by any smartphone that can
be put inside the frame. This setup, other than being very easy to
operate, is extremely cost effective and portable at the same time.
This study aims to measure the feasibility of using the above
mentioned VR system to improve the teaching process and the
effect of this system on learning outcome. Through our
experiments we intend to establish that such a setup is preferred
by students for regular usage and improves their cognitive
learning and participation.
Keywords — Virtual reality, Google Cardboard, Education
technology, Classroom interaction.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Virtual Reality and Education
Traditional education has always been language-based,
conceptual and abstract creating a distance from practical
learning, which results in a lack of deep and robust
understanding of the subject matter [1]. The revised Bloom's
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives [2] identify six levels of
hierarchy in cognitive expertise, ranging from ‘Remembering’
at the low end, to ‘Creating’ at the high end. Common teaching
processes are rarely found to address more than the first three
levels of this hierarchy. These existing teaching methods of
verbal fact delivery, visualization by chalk and blackboard or via
projectors, are inherently static in nature that requires little or no
student interaction. As a result, student attention deviates easily
over longer periods of time. There is no scope for learning by
first person experience.
VR technology offers significant benefits in this field by
providing three experiences, namely size, transduction and
reification, which are not available in real world but they are
important in learning process [3]. VR technology allows radical
changes in the relative size of virtual objects and the students.
As in Winn’s example, rather than bumping into a virtual wall,
we can keep getting closer to it so that smaller and smaller details
of the material from which it is made are revealed. At the other
extreme, we can "zoom out" from the wall, out of the house, the
city, the country and the planet if we want. “Transduction” is
conveying information that are not readily available to human
senses. For example, intensity of color being used to portray
level of radiation in virtual environment. "Reification" is the
process of creating these perceptible representations attained by
changes in size and transduction. It gives first-person access to
experiences that students could not otherwise have.
In spite of the amount of research, the use of VR in actual
classrooms were limited. This can be attributed to the high cost
of hardware that was beyond student or institutional budgets.
Hardware and software support was also a hit and miss case due
to fragmented and unstable market consisting of numerous small
companies competing without collaboration.
In our experiment we set up a system that uses Virtual
Reality to aid and improve the daily classroom teaching process.
For achieving this, the system has to be cost effective so that it
can be used individually by every student. Apart from this, the
setup has to be portable to facilitate continued usage without
being a hindrance to normal flow of classwork. This is an
important factor to achieve acceptability among students and
teachers for long term usage. The system is based on Google
Cardboard. It is a Virtual Reality (VR) platform developed by
Google for use as a head mount with a smartphone [5]. Named
for its fold-out cardboard viewer, the platform is intended as a
low-cost system to encourage interest and development in VR
applications [6]. It was announced in Google I/O 2014
developers’ conference. Users can either build their own viewer
from simple, low-cost components or purchase a pre-
manufactured one costing as low as 10$. As found in our study,
2016 IEEE 8th International Conference on Technology for Education
978-1-5090-6115-0/16 $31.00 © 2016 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/T4E.2016.21
68
ninety-nine percent of students had their own smartphones. So
we decided to follow (Bring Your Own Device) BYOD
approach for the phones to be used inside Cardboard. The
experiment was conducted over two groups of students to
measure the effects of using a VR system in contrast to using
traditional systems in classroom. The affordance and
acceptability of VR system was taken into consideration. The
response and performance of students were evaluated and
contrasted using set of carefully selected scientific
methodologies including questionnaires and objective tests.
II. L
ITERATURE
S
URVEY
A. Existing work on Virtual Reality for Education
VR is an intriguing technology. When to use it and when not
to use it are some of the confusions surrounding it. Pantelidis, V.
S. (2010) suggested a model describing when and where to use
VR [7]. The author suggests VR is helpful in any scenario that
requires simulation, realism and immersion.
An extensive survey of research and educational uses of
virtual reality, conducted by Youngblut (1998) presented a very
positive picture of the potential [4]. Youngblut found that there
are unique capabilities of virtual reality, and the majority of uses
included aspects of constructivist learning (1998, p. 93). The
majority of the teachers in the studies reviewed said they would
use virtual reality technology if it were affordable, available, and
easy to use for students and teachers (1998, p. 101). But the
practical questions bring forth the drawbacks in three main areas
namely cost, hardware support and lack of proper software
development tools (1998, p. 104). The estimated cost of
hardware starts from $10,000 to $25,000, which is beyond most
elementary, middle and high school budgets. The instability of
VR hardware market at that time was also a concern for
acquiring devices and continued after sales support for hardware
(1998, p. 105). Software compatibility and availability of proper
unified development tools were another major roadblock.
From software viewpoint, there has been a number of
significant VR environments that were developed for various
educational purposes. Some notable works are Vicher [8] and
Mass Effect [9]. But once again, there exists major roadblocks
in their everyday usage. These systems are highly subject
oriented with static content. Moreover, the hardware cost and
portability problems mentioned above is applicable to these
systems also.
B. Existing works on Google Cardboard
There is no significant research work where Cardboard is
exclusively used as a hardware platform. The only notable use
is found in Expeditions Pioneer Program [10]. This is a pilot
program undertaken by Google in very few cities around the
world where selected schools are provided Cardboard viewers,
smartphones and tablets to set up a virtual guided journey
consisting of various archaeological or important places like
Coral Reefs, space journey, galleries and museums, etc. The
students wear their viewers and look into the 3D scenes while
the teacher guides them using a tablet device, highlighting
various details and editable notes embedded in the scenes. But
being a proprietary and closed access program, the research
details available from it are almost zero. Moreover, the program
is carried out in few cities in western countries and there is no
sign of it extending into developing countries.
III. P
ROPOSED
S
YSTEM
Cardboard viewers are either procured from market or cut
out of cardboard. In case they are bought, prices are around only
Rs.200 per piece. During classroom teaching, whenever teacher
wants to display a content, the students are asked to put on their
viewers and browse to the corresponding content inside the app.
When the content is displayed on screen, each student can
individually look around the scene and its details in own pace
and own perspective irrespective of how others are viewing.
A. Architecture
The system is a combination of hardware and software
components. The viewer frame is provided by Cardboard which
holds the smartphone. The viewer has a magnetic button or
capacitive ribbon on the side. It is used to give simple input
signals to the smartphone to select objects on screen. The
viewing screen and processing power is entirely provided by the
smartphone. A minimum requirement of 1GB RAM, 4 inch +
screen and capable GPU is fulfilled by almost all smartphones
nowadays, even costing as low as Rs.6000. The third component
is the Cardboard compatible app that splits the display into two
and applies distortion correction to produce a stereoscopic 3D
scene. It displays various contents such as 3D models and
panoramic photos and videos with spatial sound.
B. Implementation
Google provides three different SDK (Software
Development Kit) to make Cardboard apps. This includes
Android SDK, Apple iOS SDK and a Unity SDK. All three
platforms are equally popular and there is no lack of support and
compatibility. The underlying standard is OpenGL, which is
widely accepted popular high performance industry standard.
The Android app is made using Java language corresponding to
JDK (Java Development Kit) 1.7, using Android SDK version
24. The user is required to open the app on phone and then put
the smartphone inside cardboard viewer. After that the viewer
can be held in front of eyes or worn on the head using a strap. A
cursor like reticle is present inside the scene which moves along
the direction user is facing. Navigation inside the app is handled
by head tilting or pressing virtual buttons by positioning the
reticle and clicking the external input mechanism in Cardboard
viewer.
IV. E
XPERIMENTAL
S
ETUP
The primary research questions that had to be answered were
listed down. Is the proposed VR system affordable, such that
Figure 1: Schematics of Google Cardboard [5] and an assembled Cardboard
setup used in experiment
69
every student can use it individually? Do the students agree that
the hardware is easy to use and portable? And are there any
significant improvements in student performance upon using
VR system in classroom learning?
A. Sample
The experiment for this study consisted of sessions for two
groups of participants, 20 in each. The participants selected for
this study were students of third year B. Tech of NIT Agartala.
The sessions were on the topic ‘Micro-controller and Arduino
Boards’ in the Human Computer Interaction (HCI) lab. The
participants were asked for their consent at the beginning of the
session. The assignment of the participants was done by the
method of random matching [11], [12]. Through this process the
participants of the two groups were matched based on the prior
knowledge on the topic that was identified through the results of
the pre-tests. This was achieved by selecting the first two highest
scoring students and assigning them to group A and B
respectively. In the second round of assignment, the order was
reversed to B and A respectively. This was repeated until no
more participants were left, each time alternating the order.
B. Procedure
Sessions for the two groups were conducted in the following
manner: Control Group A: Traditional teaching using
whiteboard, slides and projector. Treatment Group B: Teaching
complimented by usage of VR for 3D and immersive content
delivery. For group A, sessions consisted of vocational teaching
by the instructor. This was accompanied by slides presented via
projector whenever necessary. For group B, the primary
teaching was similar vocational fact delivery by the instructor.
But instead of slides and projector, VR system was used to show
contents in 3D and panoramic views. With embedded notes and
highlights in the scenes. The students were asked to bring their
smartphones everyday with the required app installed. The
cardboard viewer was provided in the lab whenever required.
Every time a VR content was to be displayed, students were
asked to put on their systems and go through the content.
C. Data Analysis
For every session, the students were subjected through the
standard model of two tests, before and after sessions. The pre-
test indicated how much understanding the students were having
before the start of session. Post-test results present their
understanding levels after the session. The performance gain is
calculated by the difference in pre and post test results. This was
continued for two months, two sessions per week, for a total of
16 sessions. The average results for each group are listed below.
T
ABLE
1
:
P
ERFORMANCE
G
AIN OF
G
ROUPS
Session
Number
Performance Gain
Group A Group B
1 6.25 5.5
2 5.75 5.25
3 7.0 6.50
4 6.75 6.5
5 3.5 5.5
6 6.0 7.5
7 5.5 5.0
8 7.75 8.0
9 4.25 6.50
10 5.75 7.50
11 6.25 7.25
12 8.75 9.0
13 6.75 5.75
14 4.50 6.75
15 3.25 5.0
16 2.75 2.5
The treatment group B were given a set of questionnaire
twice during the two-month period. Once halfway through the
experiment, and finally at the end of 16 sessions. This was done
to capture any variations in response during the long time period.
The questionnaire consisted of four statements to be rated using
a scale of 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 for “Strongly agree”, “Agree”, “Neither
agree nor disagree”, “Disagree” and “Strongly disagree”.
T
ABLE
2
:
R
ESPONSES TO
Q
UESTIONNAIRE
Question Number Mid-session
Response
End-Session
Response
1 4.3 4.7
2 5.0 5.0
3 4.1 4.6
4 3.9 3.8
V. R
ESULTS
A
NALYSIS
Students under treatment group B were initially slightly
behind the group A. But as the sessions progressed, they quickly
caught up. In the end, the average performance of Group B was
significantly better than Group A. This can be attributed to the
0
2
4
6
8
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
SESSION NUMBER
Group A Group B
Figure 3: Comparison of Performance Gain Among Two Groups
Figure 2: User wearing a Cardboard viewer with attached smartphone.
70
fact that students were not initially comfortable with using VR
system, but they got used to it as more sessions were conducted.
The final results show a promising scenario that treatment group
B had a better overall performance than control group A. The
lower value of variance and standard deviation of Group B
performance gain assert the fact that Group B students
performed better more consistently.
TABLE 3: STATISTICAL PROPERTIES OF PERF ORMANCE DATA
Group A Group B
Mean 5.671875 6.25
Std. Deviation 1.657606 1.52206
Variance 2.747656 2.316667
The response to questionnaire given to Group B was overall
positive. Statement 2 got an extreme positive rating among every
student, whereas Statement 4 acquired the lowest rating. There
was a sharp increase in rating of Q1 between mid-session and
end-session evaluation. This indicates that students became
more comfortable as they got used to the system. Q2 got a
positive rating as students agreed to the fact that the VR system
was extremely portable. For Q4, the operational complexity of
the system was not a problem as most students were familiar
with Android OS and they got more accustomed as session
progressed. Q5 got the lower rating as displaying 3D contents
on mobile displays is not always optimal, but it was acceptable
for most.
TABLE 4: AVERAGE RATINGS FOR QUESTIONNAIRE
Question
Number Question Avg.
Response
1 Using a VR system made the learning
experience for interactive and interesting. 4.50
2 The VR system is portable and easier to carry
around than a personal la ptop. 5.00
3 The system comprising of viewer and mobile
app was easy and intuitive to operate. 4.35
4 Performance and quality of the VR system in
displaying contents was acceptable. 3.85
VI. DISCUSSION
The results obtained from the experiment shows how usage
of VR system affected the knowledge gain in the treatment
group of students. The feedback questionnaire provided to
Group B students served as an indication of students’ response
to the new teaching system in class. This is essential in
evaluation of changes and modifications to better suit their
needs. Coming to our primary questions, we can formulate our
answers from the experimental observations.
Is the proposed VR system affordable, such that every student
can use it individually? In our setup, each Cardboard viewer cost
less than Rs.300. For a group of 20 students, this is roughly
Rs.6000. Being a one-time expenditure, this is easily affordable
for an institute.
Do the students agree that the hardware is easy to use and
portable? The viewer once assembled is extremely easy to use
as the only interaction is to put the smartphone inside it. Most
actions are intuitively handled by single click or head gestures.
As per students’ review, portability got a rating of 5 out of 5,
whereas ease of use got 4.35 out of 5.
Are there any significant improvements in student performance
upon using VR system in classroom learning? The data collected
during the sessions shows that student group using VR system
had a significant increase in performance as experiment
progressed. This confirms that VR can be used effectively for
increasing student performance and participation.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
The experiment along with the proposed low cost VR setup
shows how Virtual Reality environments can be used in
educational field with minimum expenditure. This is a step in
the direction of bringing immersive and realistic learning
environment to students and teachers in traditional classrooms.
The study in this paper could act as an important precursor for
researchers looking into the field of VR in classrooms. For
further work, there is scope for in depth measurement of
students’ activities and attention levels via analytics systems
implemented in VR itself. The experiments conducted above can
be performed on a bigger group of students for longer duration
to find out minute effects. We are envisioned that the use of such
mobile based low cost VR would not only improve the teaching-
learning process, but also increase student interest.
REFERENCES
[1] John T. Bell, H. Scott Fogler (1995). The Investigation and
Application of Virtual Reality as an Educational Tool. Department
of Chemical Engineering University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Reprinted from the Proceedings of the American Society for
Engineering Education 1995 Annual Conference, Session number
2513, June 1995, Anaheim, CA
[2] Krathwohl, David R. "A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An
overview." Theory into practice 41.4 (2002): 212-218.
[3] Winn, W. (1993). A conceptual basis for educational applications of
virtual reality (Technical Report TR-93-9). Seattle, Washington:
Human Interface Technology Laboratory, University of
Washington. Retrieved from
http://www.hitl.washing ton.edu/publications/r-93-9/
[4] Youngblut , C. (1997). Educational uses of virtu al reality
technology. Executive report. Reprinted from Educational uses of
virtual reality technology (IDA Document Report Number D-2128).
Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analyses, 1998. VR in the
Schools, 3(1)
[5] Google Cardboard – Google VR https://vr.google.c om/cardboard/
[6] Google Cardboard, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Cardboard
[7] Pantelidis, V. S. (2010). Reasons to use virtual reality in education
and training courses and a model to determine when to use virtual
reality. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 2(1-2), 59-
70.
[8] Bell, J. T., & Fogler, H. S. (1997). The application of virtual reality
to chemical engineering education. SIMULATION SERIES, 29,
171-176.
[9] Schofield, D. (2012). Mass effect: A chemical engineering
education application of virtual reality simulator technology.
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 63.
[10] Expeditions Pioneer Program, de veloped by Google
https://www.google.com/edu/expeditions/
[11] Ronald Aylmer Fisher. The design of experiments. 1935.
[12] Roger E Kirk. Experimental design. Wiley Online Library, 1982.
71
